On 15 March 2006 , the UN General Assembly established the new Human Rights Council to replace the much scolded UN Commission on Human Rights. The upgraded body was to bring an end to selectivity and over-politisation of human rights, in particular through its mandatory Universal Periodic Review (UPR).  

The UPR ensures that all 192 UN member states will be screened on their human rights records during a four year cycle. States are reviewed on the basis of their various human rights commitments, including: the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other human rights instruments to which the State is party, as well as international humanitarian law and voluntary pledges and commitments, including (where relevant) those undertaken when they were elected to the UN Human Rights Council.  

During discussions around the creation of the Council, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) lobbied to maintain the same involvement in the Council as they previously had in the Commission. They were successful in seeing the provisions allowing for this included in UN General Assembly resolution 60/251, establishing the Council. They also engaged forcefully to see a role for civil society organisations established in the UPR process. 

During the first year of the Council (June 2006-June 2007), the institution building phase, NGOs were formally recognised as “stakeholders” with the Council’s adoption on 18 June 2007 of resolution 5/1 stipulating that the UPR should “ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders[1], including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, in accordance with GA resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 and Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 0f 25 July 1996, as well as any decisions that the Council may take in this regard.”  

While the consideration of perspectives from multiple stakeholder seems natural in the 21st century, particularly following the UN Summit on the Information Society, such an approach it is not yet practiced in the sensitive human rights area. Many governments remain on the defensive and would rather exclude NGOs from meddling in what they believe are their sovereign affairs.   

It is all the more astounding that we as civil society have come that far.  It is partly due to the open and transparent way the institution building negotiations had taken place and partly to NGO’s own learning processes. They have become more strategic and disciplined in their interventions, moving from quantitative to more qualitative statements, and because of this have gained more respect. No government in the Council dares to be openly against the involvement of NGOs, yet we have to remain aware of every new detail in the proceedings, which might jeopardise our positions.  

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW AS A PROCESS[2]

The UPR opens a number of avenues for civil society participation. Reviewing all 192 UN Member States over a four-year cycle will be done through a process consisting of several steps: 

1.        Preparation of the information upon which reviews are based. They include: (i) information prepared by the State under review (national report); (ii) a compilation of UN information on the State under review prepared by the OHCHR, and (iii) a summary of information submitted by other relevant stakeholders, including NGOs, also prepared by OHCHR. The UPR review is based on these three documents, all of which are public. Naturally, the NGO document is the most critical one;

2.        The review itself takes place in Geneva in the Working Group on the UPR, composed of the 47 Member States of the Council, and takes the form of an interactive dialogue held between the State under review and the Member and Observer States of the Council. The Working Group meets in three two-week sessions each year and reviews 16 States at each session - a total of 48 States each year;

3.        The Working Group's adopts an outcome document at the end of each review;

4.        The Council considers and adopts the UPR outcome, normally at the next regular Council session; and

5.        Follow-up by reviewed States on the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations contained within outcome documents.  

The participation of all relevant stakeholders is encouraged throughout all steps of the process.While this may sound very technical and UN-nese, the reality is that NGOs now have the opportunity to bring information from each of their countries. Not only NGOs with status at the UN, but all relevant local and national NGOs are encouraged to provide reliable information. No country will be spared this review. The submission should not be longer than a five page document. The most important parts will appear in the summary of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but the submitted text will be shown in its entirety on the OHCHR’ website[3].In addition, all sessions of the Human Rights Council, including the UPR Working Group, are public and webcast[4] and can be viewed either live or archived.  

I see the CIVICUS Civil Society Watch (CSW) programme as a promising tool to help promote and advance civil society’s engagement in the UPR process. So far, the CSW programme has made submissions to the UPR process on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan .  

After the first 32 countries[5] went through two consecutive reviews, NGOs in Geneva are not yet totally convinced of the success of this process – too much government peer solidarity is still alive. However, the second session was already much more promising than the first one and so some cautious optimism has begun to grow.   

As we entered the third year of the Human Rights Council in June, outgoing President de Costea ( Romania ) said: “The first year was building the house, with President Alfonso de Alba ( Mexico ), (institution building), during the second we installed the plumbing, wires and furniture, (consolidation). Now we face the challenge, but with a good roadmap before us, to bring the house to life.” This challenge falls now to the 3rd President, the Nigerian Ambassador Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi. He has already met with some NGOs and he has declared one of his priorities is to work against the existing “block” culture through cross-regional consultations, soliciting civil society support in this process.  

Clearly, the UPR is the way forward. It is my hope that this ambitious process will assist us in better realising the promises contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the UN commitment to ‘Dignity and Justice for all.’  

Warm regards,

Renate Bloem